Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

677 A.2d 509

In re Nelson

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided May 20, 1996

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · decided 1996-05-20

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[W]e treat [suspension by another jurisdiction] as one warranting reciprocal discipline and that the functionally identical discipline — indefinite voluntary suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness — may be imposed pursuant to D.C. Bar XI, § 13(e).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including In Re Jeffries

Relies on In Re Samuels · In Re O'Brien

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1996-05-20

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently October 2014

14 state decisions

60199620002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1ORDER

PER CURIAM:

¶2On December 19, 1994, upon consideration of the certified copy of the orders of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, enjoining respondent from the practice of law in Maryland, and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, suspending respondent, and pursuant to Rule XI, § 11(d) of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, we ordered respondent suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia pending final disposition of this proceeding. On November 13,1995, the Board on Professional Responsibility filed a report and recommendation that the respondent be suspended indefinitely, based on the action of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Maryland, enjoining him from practicing law in Maryland until a psychologist or psychiatrist certifies that he is able to resume his activities as an attorney. Subsequently, the Board notified this court of action taken on December 4, 1995, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland suspending respondent indefinitely by consent from the practice of law in Maryland.

¶3As we said in In re Eileen O’Brien, 665 A.2d 662 (D.C.1995), “[w]e treat [suspension by another jurisdiction] as one warranting reciprocal discipline and that the functionally identical discipline — indefinite voluntary suspension with reinstatement conditioned upon a showing of fitness — may be imposed pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(e),” Id. at 662, (citing In re Samuels, 648 A.2d 943 (D.C.1994)).1 Accordingly, pursuant to the Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, to which respondent has filed no exception, it is

¶4ORDERED that respondent, Herbert T. Nelson is hereby suspended indefinitely from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. Reinstatement shall be governed by the' terms of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 13(g).2 It is

¶5FURTHER ORDERED that respondent, Herbert T. Nelson shall file the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).

¶6. Rule XI, § 13(e) provides in pertinent part:

If, in the course of a disciplinary proceeding, the attorney claims to be suffering from a disability because of mental or physical illness or infiimily, ... which makes it impossible for the attorney to present an adequate defense, the Court shall enter an order immediately suspending the attorney from the practice of law until a determination is made of the attorney's capacity to practice law under subsection (c) of this section.

¶7. Rule XI, § 13(g) provides in part:

An attorney suspended under this section may apply for reinstatement once a year, or at such shorter intervals as the Court may direct in its order of suspension or any modification thereof.... An application for reinstatement under this subsection shall be granted by the Coin! upon a showing by the attorney, by clear and convincing evidence, that the disability has ended and that the attorney is fit to resume the practice of law.
/677/a2d/509 · .json · Public domain